centralisation in a true sense would do that, at least it would for me.
Centralization is not as black and white as many people are making out and having the "Lightning Network" with it major banking hubs is a step down this road anyway which then becomes a single point of failure to anyone that does not want to open more than one channel because closing a channel can be mightily costly when it comes to BTC mining fees. A cluster of specialized nodes in a star configuration acting as route managers is perfectly acceptable to me and could be quite logical as well and it does not mean that Bill Gates gets to pull the plug on Bitcoin Quite simply the "Every node for himself" is a system that does not scale and the development team knew that eight years ago but have now all seemed to have cleared off to live it up in the sun. The lightning Network creates more problems than it solves so look at the picture I upload here http://forum.cryptolivecap.com/posts/t31-Lightning-Networkand let me know if you think it is wrong |
|
|
|
but it was end to end over a single channel. It can become quite complex over multiple hops over several channels.  Yes it is complicated and Dave on the far end of the route might not be on-line for days at a time Alice-------->Bob-------->Carol--------->Dave "When Alice sends payment to Dave through Bob and Carol, she requests
from Dave hash(R) to use for this payment. Alice then counts the
amount of hops until the recipient and uses that as the HTLC expiry. In this
case, she sets the HTLC expiry at 3 days. Bob then creates an HTLC with
Carol with an expiry of 2 days, and Carol does the same with Dave with an
expiry of 1 day. Dave is now free to disclose R to Carol, and both parties will
likely agree to immediate settlement via novation with a replacement Commitment
Transaction. This then occurs step-by-step back to Alice. Note
that this occurs off-chain, and nothing is broadcast to the blockchain when
all parties are cooperative." it uses a number of HTLC (Time locks) that locks up funds for both Bob and Dave and they themselves need to set up multisigs private ledger settlement and disputes can result in settlement going to arbitration and one side having to pay Miner fees so here we have potential counter party risk. if Bob and Carol are not major banking hubs with many inter connecting channels to other major banks then a dispersed network like this even if we assume each person always has two channels open would require at a guess something like 2,000 hops so again we are being presented with a case that is not really relevant unless it only covers a few streets if all the channels are bidirectional which is another pain in the bum by itself. See image http://forum.cryptolivecap.com/posts/m38-Lightning-Network#post38IMHO even if we forget my love of bankers/miners this is not an elegant solution to the problem of scaling and if I know it then they know it also so why are they doing this because from what I can see the lightning network is a good system for international banking but in this case the central bank become the Bitcoin block chain instead of the FED, ECB or IMF |
|
|
|
Lightning Network would work far better in situations like this, where thousands of TX can happen very quick and almost for free.
You mean "almost for free" like Bitcoin use to work and now your falling for it again with LN banking hubs I am not buying it again, sorry no way and the ones who have the know how, BTC and hardware resources to become banking hubs are the very same people that are ripping us off today and the development team has done naff all about it but talk and give us excuses about why Segwit has not lived up to it name so they can forget having any of my trust Networks come with specifications like 56k speeds and proposals contain cost annalist so where is it in the sixty pages of the LN white-paper or does this not concern academics who's living in academia because I want to see figures that I can take to the bank like this. 1. Up to 100 transactions per day will capped at $0.99 per day 2. No single transaction can cost more that $0.10 3. Transaction below $1 will only be charged at $0.01 |
|
|
|
The simple answer is that people are opening Lightning channels to save money, not to make money.
It's far from being live so you must be talking about on testnet here and Bitcoin itself was on that for years Bankers are always out to make money or did you forget that for all practical purposes we need banking hubs and you admit it in your next statement anyway with the word "indefinitely" so unless you have a friend that is always on-line, has the bandwidth and BTC to forward on your payments then can we just call them banks please. Opening a channel costs very little when you consider that it can be kept open indefinitely. The amount that can be saved in on-chain fees is pretty large, as long as you're both spending & receiving money (i.e. getting a paycheck over Lightning) Yes they first talked about days, then weeks and now years just like you keep an account open for years with a regular bank right Me and you could open a bidirectional channel and play ping-pong all night long and save $10,000 in fees or more but when we close the channel in the morning we are left with a hang over of $30 in miners fees. Now I agree $0.01 transactions should move "Off-Block" and to be honest I don't quite know how this should be done but $10 transaction just like in other system should remain "on-block" Remember that old "Virtually free transaction fees" from the original white paper because they are trying to pull that one again with hub/banking fees so why are you protecting them ? |
|
|
|
Please tell us what's your point of this post as I do believe that others know this. Microsoft and others are looking to offer a service with these, why not when it will generate income to their companies.
Yes Dot.Net framework 5.3 will include a already rolled block-chain in the System.Data Namespace and then every programmer will be coming up with excuses to use the new toy just like they did about 15 years ago with Microsoft Message Queue (MMQ) Soon I am sure you will be running your own block-chain on a cloud so if you upload anything they can proves it was you if you break the law and try to delete any incrimination evidence later and if you knew how to navigate around the Microsoft windows registry then you would understand just what I am saying here. |
|
|
|
While the e-money market is plunging into a sellout wave, blockchain technology shows a lot of potential in 2018.
Please lets not get ahead of ourselves because a simple block chain which is a fantastic concept is nothing more than a link list of ledgers using hash codes to prove that data has not been changed. I could knock something like this up in a hundred lines of code making use of the mega bloated Dot.Net framework that comes with C# in windows (Programmers pick from menus now) and I could even calculate how this would scale and I am sure the Bitcoin developers would had known this eight years ago. Replicate of the data offers redundancy but it does not provide anything that can scale and for that you need distributed processing that they forgot to bake in to the cake all them years ago and now the foundations are cracking as would be expected. The good news is that both myself and other who have already solved this issue which will ensure the survival of the block-chain but alas Bitcoin won't be around because people want transactions "On Block" not "Off block" and what is being proposed with the lightning network (LN) is much like introducing CPU-Wars to solve a simple problem of producing a coin that others have solved without having to create global warming banking hubs in LN is centralization to some degree which ever way you look at it because this every hub for himself just does not work so my advise to you is don't look down because this horse we are ridding only has three legs |
|
|
|
Craig Wright is pretending hard to let the people believe he is Satoshi, which he obv. isn't.
Look man I am sure we don't see eye to eye and i kind of like some things you say but I loved this one. My list, is fully dedicated to signature campaigners. All doubles with Dannies list are taken out now.I swear we are starting to see A.I web-bots posting here and they keep posting the same old dead comments back to the top of the forum like 24/7 to get page impression from tracking servers To be honest I was stating to think that I was the only one around here who would dare point out the obvious so from now onward's I will call you brother, well little brother anyway |
|
|
|
I don't want Satochi give his identity. Now Satochi is like a urban legend and it's contribute to create bitcoin tale. And maybe Satochi is already died  oh dear you again Double agent Satochi was better then Bernard Madoff because he never exposed himself to have to make off Maybe my footer answers your question because it's not another ICO impression counter |
|
|
|
Another government attempt to make people stay away from bitcoin and malign the name of Bitcoin, and most importantly take away the credit from satoshi I'm furious as to how are they even allowed to do it. I'm hoping the community sends it's feedback to them, they can't distort satoshi's image like this and get away. Aliens Ai how low can they stoop, I'm very much surprised as to how we're even allowing them to get away with it. I'm posting the link hope you'll also give them your piece of mind.
Thanks to satoshi we got the concept of a read only linked lists of ledgers and a system that won't scale and crazy fees from miners and CPU-Wars to keep AMD along with Intel happy and his motto must had been why use ten lines of code when a million will do. Did I mention global warming too ? Please don't worry I won't blame double agent :S-M for Segwit not really working (It was not a bad delaying tactic) or the introduction of the Lightning Network that brings bankers into our domain. Sorry man but the king has no clothes on but if you need to release your frustration and get it off your chest then I will let you PM me and I promise not to tell a sole |
|
|
|
This is what im looking for I've been using Skype for ages now im looking for new things
if your looking for ICO's let me send you some because I am getting sick of hearing about new ones Would you like some of my Car-Wheel Tokens or my Block-Chain training token or do we need a new special currency now just to use skype. |
|
|
|
Whales is just going after the people who sell not the people who hold. That's why the price is very hard to go back to $4000 because hodlers. You have to convince the hodlers to sell. That's like convincing the mountain to move.
I am sure mobby dick was around during Tulip Mania and like the OP says the wheels are starting to fall of this one and do remember we are talking virtual "mountain" here that are easy to move. |
|
|
|
Not yet mate! Bitcoin and blockchain is yet to conquer. Its changing a lot of industry, and bitcoin is the gateway, it's not over if you analys the situation in this growing industry. Long live to bitcoin and blockchain! Long live to all the great mind who initiated this financial revolution. Yaaay!  Block-Chain is good but not the way it has been implemented here on Bitcoin because it won't scale and they knew this eight years ago and the developers need to go back to school and learn what distributed system are all about. Funny others have managed it without any trouble but we are stuck with 200gb of data being replicated 20,000 times on full nodes and then the overheads of trying to keep the data all in sync. Bloody stupid it is and now the chickens are coming home to roost. |
|
|
|
Multiple transactions for the cost of one transaction. This is a big positive for individual users. Or do you imagine a utopian situation where we will have visa-level transactions on a decentralized, secure, trustless network and there won't be any fees?
Yes and now we are back to Bob buying coffee for the month each morning from the same shop and you can stop speculating with what the transactions fees might be in a years time because you don't know and you don't know what the banking hub fees will be or the interest payments on money on loan because again you don't know Quite simply you don't get it because you don't want to get it and my intellect has better things to do than trade insults with you so drink your coffee Bob and get on with them "Signature Campaigns" |
|
|
|
your title is 100% wrong because simply (as above user pointed out) when you use a SegWit transaction you will end up with a transaction size which is about 20% smaller than before so you will pay a 20% smaller fee too. additionally more transactions will be able to go into a block and that reduces the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool.
what SegWit can not do, is t hat it can not do shit about the spam attack. that will still go on and as long as it is going on the competition for the block size will be there and fees will still be unacceptably high. even if you are paying %% lower than before.
but i have a feeling that as soon as SegWit adoption goes higher the spam attack will slow down and stop.
All the outputs have to also be Segwit addresses and you can find people on the forum that said the saving was only 20% who have Segwit wallets and I agree that payments of $0.01 is spam but no one today would dare send payments this small so it must be my $100 spam that's clogging up the network and pushing the mempool high |
|
|
|
Wallets become mini hubs on the lightning network but will only provide partial functionality to what is available under the protocol listed out in the lightning white paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdfExodus and Jaxx wallets developed and ready for market in about a years time might work with a simpler UI but the banker that are coming to town will have much more sophisticated banking software that runs from a computer screen and not a I-Phone HTLC can be tweaked and take a look at this as an example It is possible for each participant to generate different versions of transactions
to ascribe blame as to who broadcast the transaction on the blockchain.
By having knowledge of who broadcast a transaction and the ability to ascribe
blame, a third party service can be used to hold fees in a 2-of-3 multisig
escrow. If one wishes to broadcast the transaction chain instead of agreeing
to do a Funding Close or replacement with a new Commitment Transaction,
one would communicate with the third party and broadcast the chain to the
blockchain. If the counterparty refuses the notice from the third party to
cooperate, the penalty is rewarded to the non-cooperative party. In most
instances, participants may be indifferent to the transaction fees in the event
of an uncooperative counterparty. Where will all these extra buttons go to contest the counterpart or will you happy to pick up the BC miner fees that today stand at $25 without trying to speculate as to what they might be in a years time. Money in the lightning network is not like liquid that flows from end to end over a route and is more like snooker balls and if your balls (BTC on deposit in private ledger) is not big enough then your not allowed to play snooker Pleases read and understand the document and I will be happy to be proven wrong |
|
|
|
The costs of running a Lightning channel are essentially zero. That makes it very difficult to make any kind of profit from Lightining channels. There's more routing potential in multiple independent nodes than there is in one node with lots of channels, so it makes no sense from a business perspective or a technical perspective.
Sorry but I cannot agree and you ran off last time when we had this debate Each channel costs in miners fees and the ledgers needs the money to operate and the killer is it works like snooker balls across the route and not as if liquid is being sent down a pipe I cannot pass your $500 to Alice because you are in credit with me on one channel unless the channel opened between Alice and myself contains $500 of my money Money cannot just be moved from one private ledger to another because it could be counterfeit money please see white paper and point out if you think my statement is not correct https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdfWe have already seen what an open market has turned into with transaction fees here so " from a business perspective AND a technical perspective" it makes perfect sense to charge transaction fees and interest on the money for the service you provide. Some of these transactions take days to be confirmed which only adds to the trouble because it's not like a end to end TCP connection and is more like UDP packet are being sent |
|
|
|
If you have an unconfirmed transaction on the Bitcoin Blockchain, I will be happy to assist, just email me your transaction ID to isaacthompson997@gmail.com and I will speed up 20 requests free but on a priority basis, so please include the time frame you have been waiting. If you would like to make a donation to ensure your transaction gets sped up immediately, please send donation to wallet - 1HedbDtaacra6qDp6y5SbZ6s3fvcC8aSxD and email me the TX ID and once I have located the transaction I will speed up your requested transaction immediately. I am available all this week so just drop me an email. Regards, Isaac Sounds like manual intervention is needed on the Bitcoin network and you can bribe miners to boost transactions so I wonder what new services we will be seeing Isaac when the lightning network turns the place into a network of banks ? Shit it will be click this referral link and get free banking fees for a month won't it |
|
|
|
For the time being, you can't the fees are too high unless both addresses are segwit.
I hear that all the outputs need to be Segwit so bungling up big transactions by someone like Coinbase (spit, spit , spit) to save money is a waste of time for them so this is why they are slow off the mark to implement Segwit Apart from changing a "1" to a "3" in the address I have not worked out why Segwit code brakes wallets myself or even the reason for the change to the address in the first place. Backwards compatibility has been broken so was it done deliberately just to fill the miners pockets because i have changed back end databases from Oracle to SQL-Server on live system and I didn't need to tell everyone that they needed a new browser to use the web-site Maybe someone here can explain what needed to be changed in the outbound transaction from the wallet to the node that could not be fixed by the node please or have people stopped questioning things these days and just do as they are told |
|
|
|
Then again, as LoyceV said above, Lightning Network would be the optimal solution for this problem but we just need to wait for it to go live so we can start making using of it.
Yes ye old problem-reaction-solution in nine months time, stay with us, we have a plan like Segwit again that didn't work because you are all using it wrong. I suspect you know by now that Lightning Network is a bankers dream and maybe your getting ready to run a banking node to make you rich but i have looked under the table and it contains magnets so maybe this is why you was so rude yesterday when I pointed the obvious out to you. You know full well I am kicking up about miner rip of fees QuestionWhy am I not screaming to see the Lightning Network implemented or do you think I have spotted the trap ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
